Reason 127 that I Can't Run for Office
I noticed the other day that a Michigan judge, up for confirmation on some federal court (sorry, I can't find the link) was getting challenged by a Midwest Republican Senator for having attended a gay civil union ceremony of some sort.
Oops. I have attended a gay civil ceremony between two acquaintances of mine. I can't remember hearing any roar from the foundations of civilization crumbling, though I am told that such will be the result of allowing some form of gay unions.
I just don't see the problem. Everyone says that gays marrying is a threat to marriage, but I can't see my marriage becoming any less strong because gay people are marrying. It would be one thing if the government was forcing such marriage rules on churches, but they are not -- we are talking civil ceremonies here. Besides, the whole "sanctity of marriage" ship sailed long ago with the advent of easy and frequent divorce. So, though I would greatly prefer such issues solved in the legislature where they belong, and not by judges, I just sort of shrug at the decision in New Jersey. Twenty years from now, this debate is going to seem so... so.... what the hell do we call this decade anyway? We have the nineties, the teens, and a big blank in the middle. How can we be nearly 70% through this thing (yes its 70%, not 60%, think about it) and no one has come up with a good name for it?
Josh:
Because we would rather just forget it.
October 26, 2006, 7:56 pmPhil:
I used to play on a couple of co-ed softball teams with several lesbians. Would that disqualify me from running?
On a related note, in the first game I played with one of those teams, I asked why they had a woman batting first instead of a guy. One of the female players replied "because we're butch women."
October 26, 2006, 8:16 pmRyan Cupples:
In Canada, instead of the majority being against, it's the majority supporting gay marriage, and society has not yet failed miserably.
While it would be wrong to force such things on churches, it would still not cause civilization to crumble.
October 27, 2006, 12:54 amdearieme:
In Britain the decade's sometimes called "the noughties", but then we're suckers for a bad pun.
October 27, 2006, 2:38 amMatt:
People are afraid of the United States repeating Canada's mistakes. I think they may be forgetting that, while we don't take the 1st Amendment remotely as seriously as we should, Canada doesn't have one at all. There's a huge constitutional fight standing between the adoption of civil unions for homosexuals and criminal charges being filed against priests, bishops, and the Knights of Columbus. In Canada, no 1st Amendment, so no constitutional barrier, and those charges are proceeding through the courts.
On the other hand, if "hate speech" laws ever survive constitutional challenges, you'll definitely see a lot more people lining up at the barricades to stop gay marriage at any cost.
October 27, 2006, 3:57 amPereldan:
My opinion is that the government at all levels needs to not be involved in the marriage process at all. Historically, until very recently, only nobles were "legally married". Everyone else was married either by a church, or by common law. Perhaps a quiet revolution is needed here, if only enough people could be convinced to no longer ask the government for permission slips to get married. Those wishing the legal benefits of marriage could still arrange personal contracts to obtain the same rights.
October 27, 2006, 4:13 amMax Lybbert:
I believe the "threat" to marriage isn't so much that homosexual unions will cause me to stop loving my wife, but that some things should simply be off limits to redefinition. From another viewpoint, why worry about what we do to terrorists, so long as we've defined torture to be something different? As long as we aren't "torturing" detainees, there's no proof that civilization will crumble. IOW, if we can redefine words at a whim to not cover certain cases that they used to cover, or to cover cases that they didn't cover before, then we're looking at a bad future.
If we redefine "marriage" to mean "business partnership," and permit people to enter into multiple business partnerships at a time, will that cause society to crumble? Or, to twist a bad saying beyond recognition, if my aunt had cajones, would she be my uncle?
October 27, 2006, 6:04 amRob:
I tend to agree with Pereldan's post.
What business does gov't have defining marriage anyway?
Or another way to ask the question, what business does gov't have defining morality?
They should be protecting us, so that we the people can make decisions about morality, money, etc.
The issue isn't about gay or straight marriage, it's about all the gov't
intervention into our private lives. To redefine the term marriage would
be redefining gov't involvement in our lives. If gay people can get married,
it will lessen the amount of control gov't can exert over people.
This is because it increases the exclusive club, which increases
the amount of people getting special benefits.
Gov't waves all these tax and social benefits in front of people whom
decide to get the permission slip called marriage. It's like the gov't
saying: "Here, we want you to live your life like this, and here's a reward
if you chose to do so, otherwise you can be x-communicated for being different."
I think we should just do away with any tax/social marriage benefits.
October 27, 2006, 7:01 amLet society evolve as it will.
Max Lybbert:
Rob, that's the interesting part. Marriage pre-dates marriage laws by quite a few centuries. As society evolved, it evolved those marriage laws.
I personally oppose gay marriage because (1) it's attempt to evolve society through changes in the law, which I think is entirely backwards (societal changes should influence laws, not the other way 'round); and (2) there's no reason to think that the laws that grew up around married couples will be a good fit for gay couples any more than the laws that developed around business partnerships would be a good fit for corporations. For me, it's not a "defense" thing, it's a square peg-round hole.
October 27, 2006, 10:30 amSP:
Nobody ever came up with a good name for the decade spanning 1900 to 1910 either. As a result, I think that decade is almost entirely lost to history. Only serious history buffs could tell you anything about what happened in that decade, who was president, any major world events.
October 27, 2006, 10:49 amRob:
SP, the first "official" airplane flight happened in 1903 ... :)
Max Lybbert, (1) If there are gay people wanting to get married, then aren't they the ones evolving the laws, hence they are evolving the laws, not the other way around (2) I agree. I guess removing all tax/social benefits would be a solution existing in the set of solutions. Solutions being new laws which can encompass marriage as a gay/straight idea. ... one day, we might marry our robots... at that point we will have the same debate. People will oppose marrying artificial beings, while others will let society evolve.
October 27, 2006, 12:31 pmMax Lybbert:
Currently homosexuals have the ability to go to a church-sanctioned ceremony and form a meaningless "life partnership" (or somesuch) if their religion of choice approves. In that case, the "community" is evolving somewhat.
Likewaise, in many states, homosexuals have the ability to register with the state government as a couple in order to get a bundle of legal rights/priveleges that come from marriage law (but not all rights/priveleges, although they haven't made a case for each such right/privelege). This is an example of society evolving and the law following suit.
From where I stand, I see the leap from where we are to full-fledged homosexual marriage as an attempt to get a societal stamp of approval on these relationships. Generally, that's what people say. "I just want to call her my wife, not my partner." But, and this is the important part, everytime society's let it's voice be heard, society does not approve. That's it.
So where do they go? Into the courtroom to have a judge declare the ability to marry who you want a legal *right*, on the same level as free speech. Tell that to Romeo and Juliet. Pretty soon we'll ahve a judge declare that I have alegal right to own a pony.
Anyhow, redefining the term "marriage" doesn't suddenly get society to approve of the relationship. But I believe the idea is that, over time, people will soften towards homosexuals. I don't think it will work, but I think that's the strategy. And I think it's bass-ackwards.
October 27, 2006, 1:26 pmMax Lybbert:
Looks like I need Firefox 2.0's spellcheck.
privileges, likewise, etc.
October 27, 2006, 1:27 pmTeri Pittman:
It's interesting that folks don't want religion interferring with the government but don't hesitate to let government interfer with religion. Marriage IS a religious sacrament, in any religion you care to name. I can understand the need for civil unions for gays, as there are property issues that need to be hammered out. I resent the attempt to define it as marriage. This is an attempt to force acceptance of homosexuality pure and simple.
October 30, 2006, 12:13 pmMatt:
If they want a social stamp of approval, they've pretty much got it already. If they want a _legal_ stamp of approval (not "I'm free to call him my wife" so much as "you can be sued for defamation if you refuse to call him my wife" or "your priest can be thrown in prison for hate crimes if he categorically refuses to perform a marriage ceremony between two men"), that's where the resistence kicks in.
Once again, people watch the insanity taking place North of the border, and fear that the same will happen here if we give in to homosexual "marriage".
As it stands, you can have sex with whoever you want. You can move in with whoever you want. You can merge finances with whoever you want. You can leave your estate to whoever you want when you die, and you can delegate your post-incapacitation healthcare choices to whoever you want while you're still alive. None of these things are more complicated to ensure for a stable homosexual couple than they are for an equally stable heterosexual couple, whether they're married or not.
Homosexuals have the right to be de facto married, under CURRENT law. They have the right to call themselves married as well. The only purpose of this campaign is to force (coercion, after all, being the government's sole talent) the rest of us to call them married as well.
And yet the campaign garners substantial support from self-described libertarians who under normal circumstances would be violently opposed to the expansion of the thought-police state mentality.
November 1, 2006, 3:12 amSteven Borg:
Well, if you call Tic-Tac-Toe "Naughts and Crosses" then the 00 decade could be called the "Naughties"
November 15, 2006, 11:25 am